SADIE CARLIN AND LOUIS CARLIN, HER HUSBAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
GOLDMAN INDUSTRIES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, SKYLAKE GARDEN RECREATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, JEROME WEINSTEIN, AND ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that assumption of the risk is no longer a complete defense in Florida.
Plaintiff slipped and fell while dancing at a condominium social hall, sustaining injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sadie Carlin and Louis Carlin (her husband), plaintiffs in the trial court, appeal from an adverse summary final judgment in a negligence action.
Sadie Carlin slipped and fell while dancing at the social hall of the Sky Lake Condominium. Thereafter, Sadie and her husband filed suit, seeking damages for injury to Sadie’s hip. Named as defendants were Jerome Weinstein [who allegedly negligently and carelessly applied wax to the dance floor] and his insurer, Allstate Insurance Company; also the building’s management, Goldman Industries, Inc., and Skylake Garden Recreation, Inc., and its insurer, Allstate Insurance Company. The trial court granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, apparently because of admissions in plaintiff-Sadie Carlin’s deposition disclosing assumption of the risk. This appeal ensued. We reverse.
In this State, an injured party may have a cause of action for a fall on a dance floor. Durden v. Dranetz, 99 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1958). The Supreme Court of Florida has now determined that assumption of the risk is no longer available as a complete defense. See: Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 3rd D.C.A. 1977), opinion filed May 5, 1977.1
Therefore, the summary final judgment be and the same is hereby reversed, and the cause is returned to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
. It is noted that this cited opinion was not available to the trial judge at the time he rendered the summary final judgment in this action.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rutecki v. Rubin Sorkin, 350 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)…been merged into the doctrine of comparative negligence under the holding in Blackburn, supra. Accordingly, the summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. Cf. Carlin v. Goldman Industries, Inc., 347 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 3d DCA, opinion filed July 6, 1977). Reversed and remanded. . This opinion was not available to the trial judge at the time he entered the summary final judgment in this action.…
Authorities Cited
- Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1977)
- Durden v. Dranetz, 99 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)